1945 and Today: My Concerns for Taiwan!

 1945 and Today: My Concerns for Taiwan!

Mr. Mo Yan once said, "I have a prejudice: I believe that literary works should never be tools for singing praises." This, of course, is a humble remark from a literary giant renowned both at home and abroad. But upon closer reflection, if we start with the word "prejudice," I think this statement reflects more of his "detachment" than his humility. Mr. Mo Yan certainly has the capital to be "detached"—or rather, "detachment" itself is his capital. This kind of capital isn’t something everyone can possess, but prejudice is something almost everyone either cannot avoid or finds indispensable.

For example, I have many prejudices myself. Here, I’ll mention just one: I always think, "If you don’t understand the past, don’t talk about the present; if you don’t recognize evil, don’t speak of love."

Today’s Taiwan is worrisome, and it easily reminds me of the Nationalist Party (Kuomintang, KMT) in 1945. In 1945, the KMT, riding the shifting tides of international circumstances, narrowly drove out the Japanese invaders in a life-or-death struggle, reaching the height of its power. Yet, just four years later, it retreated to Taiwan. Today, Taiwan relies on its democratic political system, free cultural environment, and the moderate path of the "Middle Way" to steadily navigate the pain of the pandemic. Add to that the foil of the Communist Party’s various idiotic actions across the strait, and it might be more fitting to say Taiwan has perfectly weathered the pandemic. Overall, describing today’s Taiwan as "thriving" isn’t out of place. But what about four years from now? Where can Taiwan retreat to? Will it become today’s Ukraine, today’s Hong Kong, or establish an exiled government overseas? It’s truly concerning. Of course, if someone thinks four years is too short, then what about ten years? Is ten years long enough?

Why did the KMT, at the peak of its power in 1945, retreat to Taiwan just four years later?

This is a big and complex question, not one that can be explained in a few words, nor does it have a single, definitive answer. Popular opinions on the matter can generally be categorized as follows: Some say it was due to the KMT’s corruption; others point to the KMT’s failure to implement effective land reforms; some blame the KMT’s disastrous fiscal policies; others argue it was the lack of robust grassroots party organization; still others attribute it to personal factors like President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s sudden death, Stalin’s betrayal, or even Chiang Kai-shek’s personality flaws. And then there are those less sharp-minded folks who delude themselves into thinking the Communist Party simply rode the tide of history.

I think, except for the last view, which is obviously not worth refuting, none of the other perspectives can be called outright wrong. However, from a comparative standpoint, saying these not-incorrect views fully answer the question feels somewhat forced. For instance, take the KMT’s corruption or its failure to carry out effective land reforms—what about the Communist Party? Did the Communist Party, in the areas it controlled, actually推行 "land reform"? Judging by the number of deaths, it’s more like a religiously tinged land-killing campaign. In a small county with a population of about 300,000, a so-called "land reform" could kill over 20,000 people—does that still have anything to do with land? Similarly, when it comes to the countless unjust deaths, the corruption and rot inherent in the Communist Party make the KMT’s corruption look almost saintly by comparison. Or take the KMT’s poor fiscal policies and lack of grassroots organization—what about the Communist Party? Did it have fiscal policies back then? How much of its grassroots organization was later embellished and exaggerated by posterity? The fact that it suffered so few casualties during eight years of resistance against Japan speaks volumes. As for Roosevelt’s sudden death, Stalin’s betrayal, and Chiang Kai-shek’s personality flaws, how much better was the Communist Party? Roosevelt passed away, but President Truman was at least anti-communist, wasn’t he? Stalin betrayed the KMT, but how much sincerity did he show the Communists? It was just mutual exploitation, like riding a donkey while reading a script. Chiang Kai-shek may have had flaws in his temperament, but he led eight years of resistance and ultimately won. Compared to that, was Mao Zedong even human? More like a devil.

Setting emotions aside, the various widely accepted views or opinions about why the KMT, at its peak in 1945, retreated to Taiwan four years later may feel somewhat forced, but that’s not the key issue. The key issue is that these not-incorrect views lack practical significance for today’s Taiwan. After all, conceptually, today’s Taiwan and the KMT of 1945 aren’t equivalent. But one thing remains the same: their enemy hasn’t changed. Four years after 1945, the Communist Party drove the then-thriving KMT to Taiwan. What will the Communist Party do to today’s thriving Taiwan four years—or ten years—from now? Turn it into today’s Ukraine, today’s Hong Kong, or force it to establish an exiled government overseas?

Having said all this, I can finally offer my answer to why the KMT, at its peak in 1945, retreated to Taiwan four years later: propaganda. The KMT’s defeat stemmed from its propaganda—or lack thereof. There was no helping it; no matter how you look at it, the KMT in those years was a revolutionary party, and besides propaganda, it had many other things to do. The Communist Party’s victory, on the other hand, came even more from its propaganda. That’s even harder to counter—propaganda is its root, its very foundation. Propaganda that confuses the senses, twists right and wrong, and stops at nothing is its specialty. It was like this before 1945, after 1945, and it still is today.

Born of propaganda, it will also die by propaganda—that is the Communist Party’s fate.

Born of propaganda, it will also die by propaganda—that is the Communist Party’s fate. I just don’t know if Taiwan can remain intact until that day comes. Let’s hope so! Let’s pray to the heavens together!

While praying, I’d like to somewhat arrogantly express another layer of concern for today’s thriving Taiwan. Today’s Taiwan is highly democratic politically, highly free culturally, highly developed economically, and its science and technology hold a notable place in today’s complex world. Taiwan is truly a case of "jade on the outside." As for its citizens? I’d say, without meaning any offense, that the biggest problem with today’s Taiwan is that there are too many "fools" and too few "villains."

Before elaborating on this arrogant concern that today’s Taiwan has "too many fools," I want to clarify again that "fools" here carries no derogatory or malicious intent. The "fools" I refer to aren’t defined by intelligence or judged by character but are assessed solely from the narrow perspective of empathy. How should I put it? Let’s say that I categorize as "fools" those Taiwanese citizens who are indifferent to all the atrocities committed by the Communist Party across the strait, feel nothing about them, and even—strangely—derive a sense of amusement from watching them as if it were a joke. For reasons well-known in history and reality, it’s no exaggeration to say that the Communist Party’s past atrocities were something Taiwan narrowly escaped, its present atrocities are something Taiwan should fear, and its future atrocities may well be something all of Taiwan will have to face together. Yet, under such circumstances, there are still those who cheer for tyranny—it’s baffling. There are indeed a lot of "fools," perhaps comparable in proportion to the "brain-dead" living under Communist tyranny. I should also add that the empathy I mention here is fundamentally different from sympathy.

As for saying there are "too few villains" in today’s Taiwan, I don’t blame Taiwan for this. After years of peace and progress, with the high development of democracy and freedom, most normal people naturally lean toward goodness. As a result, too few people in today’s Taiwan harbor the deep disgust I feel toward their greatest enemy across the strait, the Communist Party. Without that sense of malice, how can one become a "villain"? Honestly, having "too few villains" might not be a bad thing for today’s Taiwan, but when facing an evil entity like the Communist Party, it’s definitely not a good thing. If you don’t hate the devil, how can you face the true Buddha? So, to all the people of Taiwan today: Do you love Taiwan? If you truly love Taiwan, start by hating the Communist Party. Committing great evil requires faith, even if that faith stinks like excrement, as the Communist Party’s does. Opposing the Communist Party also requires faith, even if that faith means awakening some "villains"—something today’s Taiwan should do.

At the end of this article, I’d like to quote Mr. Qian Mu as a closing note: "The rise of communism is a reaction."

April 11, 2023